Washington, DC – The following statement may be attributed to Brian S. Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM):

Though expected, today's decision is completely illegitimate. We reject it and so will the American people. It represents nothing but judicial activism, legislating from the bench, with a bare majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court exercising raw political power to impose their own preferences on marriage when they have no constitutional authority to do so. It is a lawless ruling that contravenes the decisions of over 50 million voters and their elected representatives. It is a decision that is reminiscent of other illegitimate Court rulings such as Dred Scott and Roe v Wade and will further plunge the Supreme Court into public disrepute.

Make no mistake about it: The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and countless millions of Americans do not accept this ruling. Instead, we will work at every turn to reverse it.

The US Supreme Court does not have the authority to redefine something it did not create. Marriage was created long before the United States and our constitution came into existence. Our constitution says nothing about marriage. The majority who issued today's ruling have simply made it up out of thin air with no constitutional authority.

In his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," Dr. Martin Luther King discussed the moral importance of disobeying unjust laws, which we submit applies equally to unjust Supreme Court decisions. Dr. King evoked the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that an unjust law or decision is one that is "a human law that is not rooted in eternal law or natural law."

Today's decision of the Supreme Court lacks both constitutional and moral authority. There is no eternal or natural law that allows for marriage to be redefined.

This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has issued an immoral and unjust ruling. In 1857, the Court ruled in the infamous Dred Scott v Sandford case that African Americans could not become citizens of the United States and determined that the government was powerless to reject slavery. In 1927 the Court effectively endorsed eugenics by ruling that people with mental illness and other "defectives" could be sterilized against their will, saying "three generations of imbeciles are enough." And in Roe v Wade, the Court invented a constitutional right to abortion by claiming it was an integral element of the right to privacy. Over 55 million unborn babies have died as a result.

We urge the American people and future presidents to regard today's decision just as President Abraham Lincoln regarded the Dred Scott ruling when he said in his first inaugural address that "if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

Today's decision is by no means the final word concerning the definition of marriage; indeed it is only the beginning of the next phase in the struggle. NOM is committed to reversing this ruling over the long term and ameliorating it over the short term. Specifically:

We call on Congress and state governments to move immediately to protect the rights of people who believe in the truth of marriage from being discriminated against by passing the First Amendment Defense Act through Congress, and similar legislation in the various states.

We also call on Congress to advance to the states for consideration a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage in the law as it has existed in reality for the entirety of our nation's existence – the union of one man and one woman.

We call on the American people to make the definition of marriage a pivotal issue in the 2016 presidential contest and to elect a president who will be a true champion for marriage, one who is committed to taking specific steps to restoring true marriage in the law including appointing new justices to the Supreme Court who will have the opportunity to reverse this decision.

NOM will work tirelessly along with allies to help change the culture so that Americans have a better understanding of the importance of marriage to children, families and society as a whole.

While today's decision of the Supreme Court is certainly disappointing, it is not demoralizing to those of us who fervently believe in the truth of marriage and its importance to societal flourishing. Indeed, the decision will be energizing. Just as the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v Wade infused the pro-life movement with new energy and commitment, so too will the decision today reawaken the American people to join the marriage movement.

Our prayer for America is that today's injustice can be corrected quickly, sparing the nation decades of anguish of the kind that has followed the Court's decision in Roe.

Washington, DC — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the nation's largest organization dedicated solely to preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman, today said they were encouraged by the probing questions from the justices and demanded that the Supreme Court find that laws defining marriage as only the union of one man and one woman are fully constitutional. NOM's Chairman, John Eastman, attended the arguments.

"I am extremely encouraged by the questioning, especially from Justice Kennedy, because it focused on what marriage is," said John Eastman, Chairman of NOM. "It shows that the justices realize that marriage has existed for millennia and they have no constitutional basis to redefine it."

Over 50 million Americans have cast ballots in 35 states in support of preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Over sixty percent of the electorate in those states voted in favor of traditional marriage. Additionally, numerous state legislatures have acted to define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman. Yet these decisions have been undermined in a series of lower federal court decisions that seek to impose same-sex marriage on the entire nation, despite the preferences of voters and their elected officials.

"The entire spectacle of the same-sex marriage litigation has undermined confidence in the judicial system as activist federal judges around the nation have taken it upon themselves to substitute their own views for the sovereign right of states, expressed through their voters and elected officials, to decide this issue," Eastman said. "We call upon the US Supreme Court to put an end to this judicial tyranny by ruling forthrightly that there is nothing in the US constitution that prevents states from defining marriage in the law as it has existed in reality for millennia — the union of one man and one woman."

Eastman noted that Justice Kennedy's questioning revealed empathy to claims of discrimination against gays and lesbians as a violation of their human dignity, but that does not mean that he will find that traditional marriage laws discriminate.

"Society has many ways to support the dignity of all its citizens, including gays and lesbians, without redefining marriage," said Eastman. "The Supreme Court does not have the power to change an institution like marriage, which has predated government itself and has always existed to bring the two halves of humanity together to provide the ideal environment for raising children. Marriage is not discriminatory, it is unitive and life-giving, and must be preserved."

The Supreme Court also heard argument on a lesser but still important question of whether states must treat as valid same-sex 'marriages' performed in another state even if their own state does not allow for someone to marry a person of the same-sex.

"A number of justices clearly recognize that forcing states to recognize marriages performed elsewhere that are against their policy risks the result of a single state being able to impose their policy across the country," Eastman said. "States have the right to decide what marriages they will recognize as valid and that right should be respected."

Eastman concluded: "Nobody can safely predict the outcome of a case like this on the basis of oral argument, but we are encouraged that the justices understand what is at stake — upending an institution that has served society well for millennia — and are hopeful that they will find that the constitution does not prevent traditional marriage laws. In doing so, they will restore to the people the power to decide the issue of marriage."

Washington, DC. — Top officials from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the nation’s largest organization devoted to preserving traditional marriage, will be available on April 28th immediately following the conclusion of oral arguments presented to the US Supreme Court on the constitutionality of state laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. NOM led campaigns for traditional marriage laws in numerous states and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court urging them to uphold marriage.

Brian Brown, President National Organization for MarriageWHEN:Tuesday, April 27, 2015WHERE:Washington, DC

Tomorrow is D-Day for marriage. In this case, "D-Day" means "Decision Day." The marriage cases were not decided today, but Chief Justice John Roberts announced that the decisions will be issued tomorrow, which will be the Court's last day in session for this term.

We at NOM remain optimistic. Of course, the Supreme Court should uphold both Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. Of the two cases, the Prop 8 case is definitely the most important. If Prop 8 is upheld, it means the Court has found no constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and all the traditional marriage laws in America will be preserved. It's the end of the claim that same-sex marriage is somehow "inevitable." Gay 'marriage' activists will have suffered a catastrophic loss. We feel good about the likelihood of prevailing on Proposition 8.

If you can get there, please join other supporters of marriage on the steps of the US Supreme Court tomorrow morning at 9:30am. The remaining decisions will begin coming down at 10:00am eastern, so we should know the outcome soon thereafter.

No matter what the Supreme Court does tomorrow, the battle to preserve marriage as God designed it will continue. We ask that you pray this evening for the success of our position before the Supreme Court, for the attorneys and their families who have sacrificed so much to fight for the truth of marriage, and for those of us who will be in the media firestorm tomorrow reacting to whatever the decision may be.

Mike Gronstal, the Democratic Majority Leader in the Iowa Senate is practically throwing his body in front of the door to the voting booth, promising to block a state marriage amendment no matter how many Iowans want it. And yet today he had the chutzpah to accuse Republicans of "[stopping] at nothing to take away the constitutional rights of Iowans"?

Mike, the constitution of Iowa gives the people the right to change their constitution--by a vote of both houses in the Iowa legislature two years running. Right now you are the one man taking away the right of Iowans to vote for marriage.

The highest court in France re-affirmed today that marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason: it respects the 'double origin' of the child. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is influenced by international opinion, may be impressed. Read Reuters News for the rest.

UPDATE: Here is the link to the French Court's decision and here is the same page in a rough English translation: "RESOLVED: Article 1. The last paragraph of Article 75 and Article 144 of the Civil Code are in accordance with the Constitution."

NOM has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts supporting the Defense of Marriage Act (you can read the entire brief below).

The basic point of the brief is that DOMA falls perfectly within America's long-standing jurisprudence tradition. The federal government has a right to define terms like "marriage" for purposes of federal law. If the federal government could not define such terms the 10th Amendment would quickly become a "reverse-supremacy" clause.

- Marriage provides important benefits to society that no other institution can. Marriage:
- Regulates sexuality. Marriage establishes sexual guardrails, which remain a requirement for all successful societies.
- Socializes men. A society's most serious problem is the unattached male, and marriage links men to women who help channel male sexuality and aggression in socially productive ways. Marriage and parenthood socialize men to care for and respect their wives, other women and children.
- Protects women. Without a social norm of monogamy, women become commodities to be used and discarded.
- Provides children with a mom and a dad. Both mothers and fathers contribute in unique and irreplaceable ways to their children that prepare them to contribute to, and continue a flourishing society.

"A Saskatchewan marriage commissioner says the government will have to fire him if it expects him to perform same-sex marriages.

Larry Bjerland of the east-central Saskatchewan community of Rose Valley said he was "very disappointed" by a Saskatchewan Court of Appeal opinion Monday dealing with proposed changes to the Marriage Act.

The province's highest court ruled that two proposals from the Saskatchewan government that would let marriage commissioners opt out of performing same-sex marriages on religious grounds would be unconstitutional.

The decision was hailed by gay rights advocates, but Bjerland said it may result in his losing his appointment.

"I do not intend to marry any gay couples and so, therefore, I’m not going to resign," said Bjerland, who has been a marriage commissioner for 10 years. "They’ll have to fire me."

I submit that today, in the State of Rhode Island, we are faced with a challenge to our baptismal promises to renounce the modern day evil works of Satan and confess our belief in Christ and His holy Catholic Church. On the day of our baptism, we chose whose side we are on. The question we must now ask ourselves is: Are we still on God’s side? And if we are, how will we prove it?

This challenge takes the form of an attempt to grant to same sex couples that recognition reserved for the oldest and the only institution God created in His own image: Man as male and female united in marriage. The essence of marriage in God’s plan is a union of one male and one female, who are so physically, emotionally, psychologically and religiously complementary that each completes the other in such a way that without the other each is incomplete. For this reason, it is a vocation, a call from God to the persons concerned as to how they are to live their lives and win their salvation.

Today I came across a video by the Human Rights Campaign “exposing” the pro-family organization the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). It has to be one of the most embarrassing and ultimately hilarious pieces of propaganda ever produced.

With the breed of creepy music, and foreboding, overstated voice-overs usually reserved for the grittiest crime shows about grisly homicides and serial killers, the Human Rights Campaign explains that while NOM would have you think that its mission is to “protect marriage” (“Ah, such a noble cause isn’t it?” says the creepy voiceover), there’s a much darker (duh-duh-duh!) purpose behind NOM.

Oh yes, the HRC has dug deep, has done its research, has snooped about in seedy bars with nothing more than a notebook, a hidden tape recorder and an instinct for a scandal; they’ve pored over the dusty records in the archives, they’ve found and interrogated anonymous sources – and they have uncovered NOM’s deep dark secret: NOM exists *gasp* to fight same-sex marriage.

In the words of HRC: “their only purpose is to deny the rights of marriage to loving and committed same-sex couples and their families.” (Well, that’s not actually true: NOM would also deny marriage to homosexual couples who can’t stand each other and aren’t committed in the least.).

Out of curiosity I immediately went to NOM’s (publicly accessible) website, and clicked on the “About us” section. And indeed, just as HRC had said, in the first sentence NOM claims that their mission is to “protect marriage.”

You have to read all the way to the second sentence to find out that NOM was founded “in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures.”

Do you see how NOM hides its true purpose, purporting to be something that it isn’t? Can you evenbegin to grasp the level of dishonesty and depravity it takes to bury your real purpose all the way in the second sentence on your about page on your publicly accessible official website?! It takes your breath away.

Last week Evan Wolfson and I debated on The Economist website. I have some regrets: the moderator's comments were not forwarded to me. I can easily answer his argument: "why do we let infertile couples marry?" I did not answer it because I was responding to the arguments that Evan presented, which were all I was presented with.

I'm most proud of the fact that as the debate progressed more people supported our position. Many of the commenters on their blog are just appalled - appalled! - that even a third of Economist readers support our views. That's our achievement.

I was helped by Evan Wolfson resolute refusal to engage ANY argument. I can understand gay marriage advocates who argue their view of marriage is superior to my own. Understand at least the disagreement.

But Evan is totally committted to the intellectually absurd idea "there are not arguments for marriage."

This column by Ed Holiday is causing waves in Mississippi, one of the few states with elections in 2011. Why? Because of this line: "In 2011 a vote for a Democrat anywhere has become a vote for gay marriage everywhere."